Excluding a pupil from his school on suspicion of setting fire to a classroom did not breach his right to an education under Article 2 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the exclusion was illegal within the provisions of domestic law as established by the Education Act 1996 and the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998. As this was not a breach in the terms of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, no award of damages flowed from the illegal act.

The refusal by a school to allow a pupil to wear a jilbab at school did not interfere with her right to manifest her religious beliefs under Article 9 of the Convention, nor did it deny her access to education in violation of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention.

Where an individual had a civil right being determined in one set of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6, he would be able to claim protection under that provision in any other proceeding involving him if the outcome of that other would have a substantial effect on the determination of that civil right.

The Convention added nothing material to the issue of lateness for school - that issue had been properly taken into account by an admission appeal panel when deciding to refuse places for children at their parents' school of choice.

Refusal by the local authority to provide free school transport for claimants who lived in the Leeds administrative area to attend Jewish schools in Manchester were not irrational nor did they engage or infringe the claimants' rights under Articles 8, 9, 14 or Article 2 of Protocol 1.

A school's decision to refuse to allow a Sikh pupil to wear a religious steel bangle constituted indirect discrimination on grounds of race under the Race Relations Act 1976 and on grounds of religion under the Equality Act 2006.

The legislative ban on corporal punishment in all schools was not incompatible with parental rights under the Convention. A belief in the efficacy of corporal punishment in schools did constitute a philosophical conviction for the purposes of Articles 9 or 2 Protocol 1 but Parliament was entitled to limit the manifestation of those beliefs in the interests of children.